@Sybil2 wrote:
I can think of much better free lunches. In fact, the few lunches I do pay a small fee plus the reimbursement. And much healthier food choices with only one required ordering request.
I always find it interesting that we get into dumb debates about which is 'healthier'. Remember when eggs were horrible for you (all that cholesterol, fat, etc.) and now they are being touted as a healthy source of inexpensive protein (or were inexpensive before bird flu started cranking the price of eggs up). And remember when saccharine 'caused cancer'? Turned out that piece of research was lab rats fed NOTHING but saccharine and water--I think I would develop a cancer and croak too with a single item 'diet'. Remember when coffee and caffeine were terrible for you and you should not have more than one caffeinated beverage per day--if even that? And now the indications are that those of us who have more than 4 cups of caffeinated beverage per day are percentage wise a whole lot less likely to develop Altzheimer's. Remember when 'dark chocolate' was sooo good for you and we all cheered? Test sample group of 14 people . . . Remember when tuna was dangerous because it concentrates mercury? Salmon was dangerous for the same reason.
I'm not trying to start a food fight here, but I've been around long enough that what was bad has become good and what was good has become bad. Well rounded balance has always been my family's notion, so animal fats for some things, vegetable oils for others, short cooked veggies when they taste better that way, long slow cooking veggies for a totally different taste, home canned with lots of salt and acid, store bought, starches and pastas, meats of taste preference, nuts, fresh fruit, canned fruit, sweets, salty snacks etc. and ignore the 'fads'. For several generations now the family death certificates could best read 'worn out at the age of 9-', though most of the time the doc looks for the piece of 'the wonderful one horse shay' that wore out first. One family member has an allergy to mold, one to cat dander. No known food allergies in 4 generations, perhaps because we were omnivores from a very early age. There is a fairly substantial population of 'developmentally challenged' folks in their late 30s around here who were lovingly given salt free infant formula by their concerned parents in the test market to keep them from 'learning to love salt', which we all 'knew' to be dangerous. Turns out that salt is needed for normal mental development. The docs just now are getting around to 'exposing' small children to nuts so they don't develop peanut allergies later. Their work is so promising they are going to tackle more of the foods to which people develop allergies . . .